Progress Energy today proposed shutting down 11 coal-burning power plants in the state, a move that signals the beginning of the end of the dirty coal era that has defined the state's electricity production for decades.
The Raleigh-based electric utility is moving to shutter older coal-burning plants as it becomes increasingly expensive to retrofit aging facilities to trap pollution. Additionally, power companies across the country are anticipating stringent greenhouse gas restrictions to be imposed soon by Congress that will have the effect of penalizing coal-dependent utilities like Progress.
More than half the state's electricity is produced by coal, an abundant domestic source of energy that's lost favor because it emits carbon dioxide, believed to be a major contributor to global warming. The United States has more than 200 years of coal reserves, but in recent years dozens of power companies have scrapped plans to build new coal power plants in the environmental backlash against global warming.
Progress expects to shut down the 11 coal-burning plants by 2017. It plans to replace some of the coal plants with plants powered by natural gas, a cleaner-burning fossil fuel that emits less than half the greenhouse gases produced by coal. Natural gas eliminates most other pollutants, including the neurotoxin mercury as well as ozone-forming emissions.
The 11 plants account for about 12.5 percent of the electricity Progress generates. The oldest coal plant proposed for closure was built in 1949, near Lumberton. Most were built in the 1950s. They lack the costly sulphur-dioxide-trapping "scrubber" technology that would cost more than $1 billion to install.
To meet state pollution limits, Progress has already installed scrubbers on its newer coal plants at a cost of about $2 billion. Those plants, in Person County and Buncombe County, will remain in service.
In addition to the W.H. Weatherspoon plant near Lumberton, the older plants to be shut down include the Cape Fear Plant in Moncure in Chatham County, as well as the Sutton plant near Wilmington. The list of 11 also includes three units at the Lee plant near Goldsboro -- the company's first coal plant selected for retirement last August.
John Murawski has been a full-time newspaper reporter since 1991, with stints at Legal Times and The Chronicle of Philanthropy (both in Washington, DC), The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Palm Beach Post (in South Florida) before arriving at the N&O in December 2004. At the N&O he covers energy (nuclear, coal, renewable, efficiency), hydralic fracturing (or "fracking"), public utilities (both electric and natural gas) and health care. His beat includes Progress Energy, PSNC Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, PowerSecure International, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Biogen Idec and others. You can reach him at 919-829-8932 or
Comments
Wouldn't hurt to start
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 21:59 — paulvailWouldn't hurt to start super-insulating your homes now, before the big rush. The cheapest, easiest and most efficient way to save a ton on heating and cooling costs. If electricity becomes more dear, every kilowatt will matter. Those that have pooh-poohed LED lighting, reflective roofing, passive shading from trees (preferring grass !!! what's up with that mindset?), or have just bought their 52" t.v. that sucks 150 Watts when OFF -- they'll have to learn to be true conservatives, not just Barry Goldwater whack jobs.
The one thing about this
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 15:50 — NotLiberalThe one thing about this article I will speak about is not something that was actually even mentioned in the story.
Here you have an energy company looking to replace a dozen energy plants and what do they decide to use in their place.
As much as the environmentalist would love to check this one in the "win" column, in fact it gets marked in the "lose" instead.
Why?
Because Progress isn't going with wind, solar, hydro, or geo-thermal plants, they are going with natural gas instead.
And why are they doing this?
Could it be because:
Wind and solar take up more space? or
Wind and solar can't produce sufficient power? or
Of cost of green friendly energy farms? or
Could it be that the energy company knows they need plants that can run 24/7. Something that neither wind nor solar can do.
I really have no idea why they would not go with a "greener" option. But maybe we each should take a step back and ponder that question ourselves.
Rolling Blackouts, Wildly fluctuating Electricity prices.
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 15:08 — mike27513Get ready for the rolling blackouts and doubling of Electricity prices due to Cap and Tax bill.
Coal is priced in long term stable price contracts and is a domestic supply not subject to natural disasters.
Natural Gas price is dependent on the Gulf of Mexico production so when another Hurricane Katrina rolls through the Gulf and Gas supply is shut down expect Gas/electricity prices to double.
Just some more of the - Change We Can Believe In!
Cap and Trade - Job Creator?
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 14:03 — PACK_MIKE77The Raleigh-based electric utility is moving to shutter older
coal-burning plants as it becomes increasingly expensive to retrofit
aging facilities to trap pollution. Additionally, power companies
across the country are anticipating stringent greenhouse gas
restrictions to be imposed soon by Congress that will have the effect
of penalizing coal-dependent utilities like Progress.
This will happen to all of the 10 other sites.
Progress Energy did not say they would find jobs elsewhere.
$640,000 gone from tax revenue. GONE.
Obama will really help Moncure NC.